Search

Objectives The aim of this study was to determine 1-year safety and efficacy after treatment with the COMBO and Orsiro stents. Background The COMBO stainless-steel stent has an anti-CD34+ antibody coating to capture endothelial progenitor cells, thereby promoting faster endothelialization. The Orsiro is an ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium stent, covered by an extremely thin layer of amorphous silicon carbide to minimize ion leakage. Both devices elute sirolimus from biodegradable polymers. Methods For this analysis we included European patients from the COMBO collaboration, a patient-level pooling of 2 prospective all-comers registries of COMBO stent implantation (n = 2,775), and all patients randomized to the Orsiro stent (n = 1,169) from the Dutch BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) randomized trial. The main outcome of interest was 1-year target lesion failure, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target lesion revascularization evaluated using propensity score–matched analysis. Results At baseline, COMBO patients were older and had more insulin-treated diabetes, renal insufficiency, and other comorbidities. However, Orsiro patients included more current smokers and more acute coronary syndrome presentations. Orsiro patients also received longer stents and had more complex target lesions. After propensity score–matched analysis (n = 862/arm), 1-year target lesion failure occurred in 4.1% of COMBO-treated and 2.7% of Orsiro-treated patients (hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 0.92 to 2.62; p = 0.10). Definite stent thrombosis occurred in 0.5% of COMBO-treated and 0.5% of Orsiro-treated patients (p = 0.99). Conclusions A propensity score–matched comparison of all comers treated with the COMBO or Orsiro stent showed no statistically significant differences. Stent thrombosis risk was low and similar between the stents. (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population [BIO-RESORT], NCT01674803; MASCOT–Post Marketing Registry [MASCOT], NCT02183454; Prospective Registry to Assess the Long-term Safety and Performance of the Combo Stent [REMEDEE Reg], NCT01874002)

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). Background The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES. Methods A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel–related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis. Results Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (plog rank = 0.22) and in 8.8% with everolimus-eluting stents (vs. ZES, plog rank = 0.32). Rates of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization were similar between stent groups. Landmark analyses found no statistically significant between-stent difference in repeat revascularization between 1 and 3 years. Definite or probable stent thrombosis rates were low (SES, 1.1%; everolimus-eluting stent, 1.1%; ZES, 0.9%) and similar with all 3 DES. Conclusions Despite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage.

BACKGROUND Treatment of a coronary bifurcation lesion is often required in routine clinical practice, but data on the performance of very thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents are scarce. METHODS Comparison of biodegradable polymer and durable polymer drug-eluting stents in an all comers population (BIO-RESORT) is a prospective, multicenter randomized clinical trial that included 3514 all-comer patients, who were randomized to very thin-strut biodegradable polymer-coated sirolimus- or everolimus-eluting stents, versus thin-strut durable polymer-coated zotarolimus-eluting stents. The approach of bifurcation stenting was left at the operator's discretion, and provisional stenting was generally preferred. This prespecified analysis assessed 3-year clinical outcome of all patients in whom treatment involved at least one bifurcation with a side-branch diameter ≥1.5 mm. RESULTS Of all BIO-RESORT trial participants, 1236 patients were treated in bifurcation lesions and analyzed. Single- and two-stent techniques were used in 85.8% and 14.2%, respectively. 'True' bifurcation lesions (main vessel and side-branch obstructed) were treated in 31.1%. Three-year follow-up was available in 1200/1236 (97.1%) patients. The main endpoint target vessel failure (composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization) occurred in sirolimus-eluting stents in 42/412 (10.3%) and in zotarolimus-eluting stents in 49/409 (12.1%) patients (P-logrank = 0.40). In everolimus-eluting stents, target vessel failure occurred in 40/415 (9.8%) patients (vs. zotarolimus-eluting stents: P-logrank = 0.26). There was no between-stent difference in individual components of target vessel failure. Findings were consistent in patients with single-vessel treatment and patients treated with a single-stent technique. CONCLUSIONS Three years after stenting all-comers with bifurcation lesions, clinical outcome was similar with the sirolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting stents versus the zotarolimus-eluting stent.

Background Patients with diabetes have more extensive coronary disease, resulting in higher risks of adverse clinical events following stenting. In all-comer patients, contemporary DES have shown excellent safety and efficacy, but data on diabetic patients are scarce. Separately for the BIO-RESORT and BIONYX trials, we assessed the 2-year clinical outcomes of diabetic patients, treated with various contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods We performed two prespecified secondary analyses of two randomized DES trials, which both stratified for diabetes. The main endpoint was target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Follow-up was finished before the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In BIO-RESORT, 624/3514 (17.8%) had diabetes: 211 received Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stents (SES), 203 Synergy everolimus-eluting stents (EES), and 210 Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stents (RI-ZES). TVF did not differ between SES (10.2%) and EES (10.0%) versus RI-ZES (12.7%) (SES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.78, 95%-CI [0.44–1.40]; p = 0.40, EES vs. RI-ZES HR:0.79, 95%-CI [0.44–1.40]; p = 0.42). In BIONYX, 510/2488 (20.5%) patients had diabetes: 250 received SES and 260 Resolute Onyx zotarolimus-eluting stents (RO-ZES). There was no difference in TVF between SES (10.7%) versus RO-ZES (12.2%) (HR:0.88, 95%-CI [0.52–1.48]; p = 0.63). Conclusions There was no difference in 2-year clinical outcome among patients with diabetes, who were treated with SES, or EES, versus RI-ZES. In addition there was no difference in clinical outcome in diabetic patients, who were treated with SES versus RO-ZES. These findings may be considered as a signal of safety and efficacy of the studied DES in patients with diabetes., Graphical abstract Unlabelled Image, Highlights • This is the first report of diabetic patient outcome after PCI with Resolute Onyx. • Resolute Onyx versus Orsiro stents were similarly safe and efficacious at 2 years. • Diabetic patient outcome with Orsiro, Synergy, and Resolute Integrity was similar. • 2-year stent thrombosis rate was low for each device, yet lowest for Resolute Onyx. • Medical therapy and risk factor management may have greater impact than DES choice.

Objective The objective was to assess the 2‐year clinical performance of three drug‐eluting stents in all‐comer patients with severely calcified coronary lesions. Background Severe lesion calcification increases cardiovascular event risk after coronary stenting, but there is a lack of data on the clinical outcome of all‐comers with severely calcified lesions who were treated with more recently introduced drug‐eluting stents. Methods The BIO‐RESORT trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01674803) randomly assigned 3,514 all‐comer patients to biodegradable polymer Synergy everolimus‐eluting stents (EES) or Orsiro sirolimus‐eluting stents (SES), versus durable polymer Resolute Integrity zotarolimus‐eluting stents (ZES). In a post hoc analysis, we assessed 783 patients (22.3%) with at least one severely calcified target lesion. Results At 2‐year follow‐up (available in 99% of patients), the main composite endpoint target vessel failure occurred in 19/252 (7.6%) of the EES and in 33/265 (12.6%) of the ZES‐treated patients (p = .07). Target vessel failure occurred in 24/266 (9.1%) of the SES‐treated patients (vs. ZES: p = .21). There was a difference in target vessel revascularization, which was required in EES in 6/252 (2.4%) patients and in ZES in 20/265 (7.7%) patients (p = .01); the target vessel revascularization rate in SES was 9/266 (3.4%, vs. ZES: p = .04). Multivariate analysis showed that implantation of EES, but not SES, was independently associated with lower target vessel revascularization rates than in ZES. Conclusions In BIO‐RESORT participants with severely calcified target lesions, treatment with EES was associated with a lower 2‐year target vessel revascularization rate than treatment with ZES.

Aims: It is unclear whether detection of prediabetes (pre-DM) by routine assessment of glycated haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES) may help identify subjects with increased event risk. We assessed the relation between glycaemia status and one-year outcome after PCI. Methods and results: Glycaemia status was determined in 2,362 non-diabetic BIO-RESORT participants, treated at all four study sites, to identify pre-DM (HbA1c 42-47 mmol/mol; FPG 6.1-6.9 mmol/L) and unknown diabetes mellitus (DM) (HbA1c ≥48 mmol/mol; FPG ≥7.0 mmol/L). Another 624 patients had medically treated DM. The main composite endpoint consisted of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularisation. Glycaemic state was known in 2,986 participants: 324 (11%) patients had pre-DM, 793 (27%) had DM (known or new), and 1,869 (63%) patients had normoglycaemia. Pre-DM and DM patients differed from normoglycaemic patients in cardiovascular risk factors. The composite endpoint occurred in 11.1% in pre-DM, 10.5% in DM, and 5.7% in normoglycaemia (p

Importance: Stenting small-vessel lesions has an increased adverse cardiovascular event risk. Very thin-strut or ultrathin-strut drug-eluting stents might reduce this risk, but data are scarce. Objective: To assess the outcome of all-comer patients with small coronary vessel lesions treated with 3 dissimilar types of drug-eluting stents. Design: This is a prespecified substudy of the Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-eluting Stents in an All Comers Population (BIO-RESORT) trial, an investigator-initiated, randomized, patient-blinded comparative clinical drug-eluting stent trial. Patients treated with ultrathin-strut sirolimus-eluting stents, very thin-strut everolimus-eluting stents, or previous-generation thin-strut zotarolimus-eluting stents were enrolled from December 2012 to August 2015. This multicenter trial was conducted in 4 Dutch centers for cardiac intervention. Of all 3514 all-comer BIO-RESORT participants, 1506 patients with treatment in at least 1 small-vessel lesion (reference vessel

The aim of this study was to assess the 3-year safety and efficacy of treating all-comer patients with 3 contemporary drug-eluting stents (DES).The BIO-RESORT (Comparison of Biodegradable Polymer and Durable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents in an All Comers Population) (TWENTE III) randomized trial (NCT01674803) found similar 1-year safety and efficacy for the 2 biodegradable-polymer DES (i.e., ultrathin-strut cobalt-chromium Orsiro sirolimus-eluting stent [SES] and very-thin-strut platinum-chromium Synergy everolimus-eluting stent) compared with the durable-polymer thin-strut cobalt-chromium Resolute Integrity zotarolimus-eluting stent (ZES). Two-year follow-up suggested that the SES might reduce repeat revascularizations beyond 1 year compared with the ZES.A total of 3,514 all-comer patients were treated at 4 centers for coronary intervention. The main clinical endpoint, target vessel failure, was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularization). Secondary endpoints included the individual components of target vessel failure and stent thrombosis.Three-year follow-up data were available for 3,393 of 3,514 patients (96.6%). Target vessel failure occurred in 8.5% with SES and 10.0% with ZES (pDespite substantial differences in stent backbone and polymer coating, all 3 DES showed favorable 3-year safety and efficacy in all comers, without significant between-stent differences. Further follow-up is required to definitely answer the question of whether one stent might improve clinical outcomes at a later stage.

Purpose Patients with high bleeding risk (HBR) who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention also have an increased risk of ischemic events and represent an overall high-risk population. The coating of durable polymer drug-eluting stents (DP-DES) may induce inflammation and delay arterial healing, which might be reduced by novel biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of treating HBR patients with very thin-strut BP-DES versus thin-strut DP-DES. Methods Participants in BIO-RESORT (NCT01674803), an investigator-initiated multicenter, randomized all-comers trial, were treated with very thin-strut BP-DES (Synergy or Orsiro) or thin-strut DP-DES (Resolute Integrity). For the present analysis, patients were classified following HBR criteria based on previous trials. The primary endpoint was target vessel failure: a composite of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization at 1 year. Results Of all 3514 patients, 1009 (28.7%) had HBR. HBR patients were older (p

Background: In patients with coronary artery disease, treated with durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents, the life-long presence of the polymer might delay arterial healing. Novel very thin strut biodegradable polymer stents, which leave only a bare metal stent after polymer resorption, might improve long-term outcome. We investigated in allcomers the safety and efficacy of three stents eluting either everolimus, sirolimus, or zotarolimus, often clinically used but never compared, of which the biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting stent was never before assessed in allcomers. Methods: The large-scale, investigator-initiated, multicentre, assessor and patient blinded, three-arm, randomised, BIO-RESORT non-inferiority trial was done at four clinical sites in the Netherlands. All-comer patients were aged 18 years or older, capable of providing informed consent, and required a percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation according to clinical guidelines or the operators' judgment. Exclusion criteria were: participation in another randomised drug or device study before reaching the primary endpoint of that study; planned surgery necessitating interruption of dual antiplatelet therapy within the first 6 months; known intolerance to components of the investigational product or medication required; uncertainty about the adherence to follow-up procedures or an assumed life expectancy of less than 1 year; or known pregnancy. Web-based computer-generated allocation sequences randomly assigned patients (1:1:1) to treatment with very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents (which differ substantially in type, amount, distribution, and resorption speed of their respective coating), or thin strut durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents. The primary endpoint was a composite of safety (cardiac death or target vessel-related myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation) at 12 months of follow up with a very thin strut biodegradable polymer of either everolimus-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents, compared with durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents, analysed by intention to treat (non-inferiority margin 3·5%). This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01674803. Findings: From Dec 21, 2012, to Aug 24, 2015, 3514 patients were enrolled and analysed, of whom 2449 (70%) had acute coronary syndromes, which included 1073 (31%) ST-elevation myocardial infarctions. 12 month follow-up of 3490 (99%) patients (three lost to follow-up; 21 withdrawals) was available. The primary endpoint was met by 55 (5%) of 1172 patients assigned to everolimus-eluting stents, 55 (5%) of 1169 assigned to sirolimus-eluting stents and 63 (5%) of 1173 assigned to zotarolimus-eluting stents. Non-inferiority of the everolimus-eluting stents and sirolimus-eluting stents compared with zotarolimus-eluting stents was confirmed (both −0·7% absolute risk difference, 95% CI −2·4 to 1·1; upper limit of one sided 95% CI 0·8%, pnon-inferiority

Background The newest iteration of the durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) is designed with thin swaged shape composite-wire struts (inner platinum–iridium core and outer cobalt–chromium layer). It is of interest to compare the clinical performance of this novel device with its predecessor in all-comers. Purpose The purpose of the present study is to assess 2-year clinical outcome in all-comer patients who were treated with the novel ZES versus the previous iteration ZES. Methods We did a post-hoc analysis of clinical outcome data of 2374 patients who were treated with the novel or the previous generation ZES (only nominal stent diameters that were available for both devices) in two consecutive large-scale randomised all-comer trials. A total of 1201 trial participants were treated with the novel ZES, and 1173 were treated with the previous generation ZES. The main outcome parameter target vessel failure is a composite of safety (cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction) and efficacy (target vessel revascularisation). Clinical outcome data were analysed with Kaplan-Meier methods and hazard ratios were computed with Cox regression analysis. An additional analysis was done in a subgroup of patients who presented with chronic coronary syndromes. Results The mean age of the study population was 63.9±10.9 years, 611 (25.7%) were female and 1669 (70.3%) presented with acute coronary syndromes. Two-year follow-up was available in 2346 (98.8%) participants. After 2 years, there was no significant difference between stent-groups in the rates of target vessel failure (7.2% vs. 8.3%, HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64–1.14, p-logrank = 0.28; Figure 1) or its individual components. Peri-procedural myocardial infarction occurred less often in patients treated with the novel ZES (0.7% vs. 2.1%, p-logrank Conclusions The novel ZES showed similar 2-year clinical outcomes as compared to its predecessor. Furthermore, there was a positive safety signal regarding the incidence of target vessel myocardial infarction and a particularly low stent thrombosis rates with the novel ZES. Figure 1. Target vessel failure at 2 years Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): Thoraxcentrum Twente has received institutional research grants provided by Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific and Medtronic. The present analysis received no funding.

Contains fulltext : 196083.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access) INTRODUCTION: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) enables detailed imaging of the coronary wall, lumen and intracoronary implanted devices. Responding to the lack of specific appropriate use criteria (AUC) for this technique, we conducted a literature review and a procedure for appropriate use criteria. METHODS: Twenty-one of all 184 members of the Dutch Working Group on Interventional Cardiology agreed to evaluate 49 pre-specified cases. During a meeting, factual indications were established whereupon members individually rated indications on a 9-point scale, with the opportunity to substantiate their scoring. RESULTS: Twenty-six indications were rated 'Appropriate', eighteen indications 'May be appropriate', and five 'Rarely appropriate'. Use of OCT was unanimously considered 'Appropriate' in stent thrombosis, and 'Appropriate' for guidance in PCI, especially in distal left main coronary artery and proximal left anterior descending coronary artery, unexplained angiographic abnormalities, and use of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS). OCT was considered 'Rarely Appropriate' on top of fractional flow reserve (FFR) for treatment indication, assessment of strut coverage, bypass anastomoses or assessment of proximal left main coronary artery. CONCLUSIONS: The use of OCT in stent thrombosis is unanimously considered 'Appropriate' by these experts. Varying degrees of consensus exists on the appropriate use of OCT in other settings. 11 p.

Aim: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of 2 novel drug-eluting stents (DES) with biodegradable polymer-based coatings versus a durable coating DES. Methods and Results: BIO-RESORT is an investigator-initiated, prospective, patient-blinded, randomized multicenter trial in 3540 Dutch all-comers with various clinical syndromes, requiring percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with DES implantation. Randomization (stratified for diabetes mellitus) is being performed in a 1:1:1 ratio between ORSIRO sirolimus-eluting stent with circumferential biodegradable coating, SYNERGY everolimus-eluting stent with abluminal biodegradable coating, and RESOLUTE INTEGRITY zotarolimus-eluting stent with durable coating. The primary endpoint is the incidence of the composite endpoint target vessel failure at 1 year, consisting of cardiac death, target vessel-related myocardial infarction, or clinically driven target vessel revascularization. Power calculation assumes a target vessel failure rate of 8.5% with a 3.5% non‐inferiority margin, giving the study a power of 85% (α level .025 adjusted for multiple testing). The impact of diabetes mellitus on post-PCI outcome will be evaluated. The first patient was enrolled on December 21, 2012. Conclusions: BIO-RESORT is a large, prospective, randomized, multicenter trial with three arms, comparing two DES with biodegradable coatings versus a reference DES with a durable coating in 3540 all-comers. The trial will provide novel insights into the clinical outcome of modern DES and will address the impact of known and so far undetected diabetes mellitus on post-PCI outcome

Reperfusion limits myocardial necrosis, however induces reperfusion injury leading to additional necrosis and apoptosis. Glucagon Like Peptide-1 (GLP-1), an incretin hormone, has anti-apoptotic properties and proved to be cardioprotective in experimental studies. This pilot study assessed the safety and feasibility of the GLP-1 receptor agonist exenatide in patients with acute MI undergoing primary PCI. Methods: Seventy-one non-diabetic patients with acute MI undergoing primary PCI were randomized to placebo or exenatide 5μg bolus administered in 30 minutes prior to PCI, followed by continuous infusion of 20μg/ 24 hours for 72 hours. Blood samples were obtained including enzymatic infarct size and glucose levels. Magnetic resonance imaging and echocardiography were conducted 3-5 days and 4 months post MI for measurements including infarct size, cardiac function and myocardial salvage index (MSI), a predictor for mortality and major adverse cardiac events. Results: Forty out of 71 randomized patients completed the full protocol. Exclusion was mainly due to angiographic criteria. Patient characteristics were well balanced between the groups. An equal amount of hypo- and hyperglycemic episodes (glucose 10 mmol/L) were observed in both groups. No deaths, CABG or re-infarction occurred during the 4-month follow-up. Although more patients in the exenatide group experienced nausea (58% v 20%, p = 0.015), no decrease or cessation of exenatide was required. Infarct size, cardiac function and MSI at 4 months did not differ signiicantly. However, a trend towards a higher MSI was seen in patients with TIMI 0 and 1 low receiving exenatide (0.65 ± 0.14 (n = 12) v 0.53 ± 0.17 (n = 11), p = 0.09). Conclusions: We demonstrated that administering exenatide in patients with acute MI undergoing primary PCI is feasible and safe. Although not powered for this analysis, Exami phase l seems to show a trend towards a higher MSI in the exenatide group. A large randomized placebo controlled study is required to assess the eficacy of exenatide on myocardial salvage.